Literature DB >> 23939021

Top-down suppression of incompatible motor activations during response selection under conflict.

Pierre-Alexandre Klein1, Charlotte Petitjean1, Etienne Olivier1, Julie Duque2.   

Abstract

Top-down control is critical to select goal-directed actions in changeable environments, particularly when several options compete for selection. This control system is thought to involve a mechanism that suppresses activation of unwanted response representations. We tested this hypothesis, in humans, by measuring motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in a left finger muscle during motor preparation in an adapted Eriksen flanker task. Subjects reported, by a left or right button-press, the orientation of a left- or right-facing central arrow, flanked by two distractor arrows on each side. Central and peripheral arrows either pointed in the same (congruent trial) or in the opposite direction (incongruent trial). Top-down control was manipulated by changing the probability of congruent and incongruent trials in a given block. In the "mostly incongruent" (MI) blocks, 80% of trials were incongruent, producing a context in which subjects strongly anticipated that they would have to face conflict. In the "mostly congruent" (MC) blocks, 80% of trials were congruent and thus subjects barely anticipated conflict in that context. Thus, we assume that top-down control was stronger in the MI than in the MC condition. Accordingly, subjects displayed a lower error rate and shorter reaction times for the incongruent trials in the MI context than for similar trials in the MC context. More interestingly, we found that top-down control specifically reduced activation of the incompatible motor representation during response selection under high conflict. That is, when the central arrow specified a right hand response, left (non-selected) MEPs became smaller in the MI than in the MC condition, but only for incongruent trials, and this measure was positively correlated with performance. In contrast, MEPs elicited in the non-selected hand during congruent trials, or during all trials in which the left hand was selected, tended to increase more after the imperative signal in the MI than the MC condition. Another important observation was that, overall, MEPs were already strongly suppressed at the onset of the imperative signal and that this effect was particularly pronounced in the MI context. Hence, suppression of motor excitability seems to be a key component of conflict resolution.
© 2013.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conflict; Corticospinal excitability; Inhibition; Response selection; Top-down control; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23939021     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  32 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning.

Authors:  Gabriele Wulf; Rebecca Lewthwaite
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

2.  Motor cortex disruption delays motor processes but not deliberation about action choices.

Authors:  Gerard Derosiere; David Thura; Paul Cisek; Julie Duque
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Sequential modulation of (bottom-up) response activation and inhibition in a response conflict task: a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation study.

Authors:  Barbara Treccani; Giorgia Cona; Nadia Milanese; Carlo Umiltà
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-04-09

4.  Visuomotor Correlates of Conflict Expectation in the Context of Motor Decisions.

Authors:  Gerard Derosiere; Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Sylvie Nozaradan; Alexandre Zénon; André Mouraux; Julie Duque
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Dissociating the influence of response selection and task anticipation on corticospinal suppression during response preparation.

Authors:  Julie Duque; Ludovica Labruna; Christian Cazares; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 6.  Physiological Markers of Motor Inhibition during Human Behavior.

Authors:  Julie Duque; Ian Greenhouse; Ludovica Labruna; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 13.837

7.  Is cognitive control automatic? New insights from transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  G Cona; B Treccani; C A Umiltà
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

8.  Suppressing a motivationally-triggered action tendency engages a response control mechanism that prevents future provocation.

Authors:  Scott M Freeman; Dominic Alvernaz; Alexandra Tonnesen; David Linderman; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Orchestrating Proactive and Reactive Mechanisms for Filtering Distracting Information: Brain-Behavior Relationships Revealed by a Mixed-Design fMRI Study.

Authors:  Francesco Marini; Elise Demeter; Kenneth C Roberts; Leonardo Chelazzi; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Comparison of the two cerebral hemispheres in inhibitory processes operative during movement preparation.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Klein; Julie Duque; Ludovica Labruna; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.